Since James Butler nagged me about it...
This is something I've run up fairly quickly to demonstrate what I mean by a
descriptive design system. It's extremely unfinshed and hideously flawed in
many ways, and the arithmetic is ugly, but it's not unusable. The only glaring
omission is the lack of a costing for sensors.
I've tried to make the numbers relatively consistent with those from the FT
rules. Systems have a base cost of four times their current mass. Screens are
a bit funny in that I've made them cost twice, once to shaft small ships and
again to shaft the large ones. It all needs a lot of work, damage boxes, for
example, ought to cost more on the first track than one the second (I've
ducked the issue of how damage tracks should be formed). &c. ad nauseum.
Enough waffle, here it is.
---------------------------------------------------------
Write down your chosen ship, whatever systems, however much damage.
Systems have the following values:
Class 'A' Battery 4 + 4-per-arc
Class 'B' Battery 2 + 2-per-arc
Class 'C' Battery 1 + 1-per-arc
PDAF System 4 ADAF System 12 Fighter Bay 8 Needle Beam 8 Pulse Torpedo Tube 20
Submunition Pack 4 Fire Control Systems 12 (but your first one free) Damage
Control Party 8 Screen Generator 12 (and additional cost below) FTL Drive
zero, nada, zip... one allowed only
Total the value of all the systems and the damage boxes @ 4 points/
box.
Points Value = Total ^ (1 + (thrust/50) + (screens/50)) [round down]
Fighter groups then cost an additional 12 points (plus MT options).
-------------------------------------
These are the current and "descriptive" PV's for some ships in FT and
MT for comparison. The one non-FTL ship becomes noticably more costly
while the merchant ships are much less so. Carriers drop a little, but
otherwise it's all much as it was. (I've been deliberately quite
conservative.)
Mass Thrust Now New Courier 2 8 15 11 Scoutship 4 8 28 24 Strikeboat 4 8 26 24
Corvette 6 8 43 55 Lancer 6 8 39 55 Frigate 10 6 65 76 Destroyer 14 6 92 105
Torpedo Destroyer 14 6 86 105 Super Destroyer 16 6 105 120 Privateer 18 8 137
186
Light Cruiser 22 6 190 225 Needle Cruiser 22 6 187 225 Escort Cruiser 26 4 195
222 Strike Cruiser 28 4 198 229 Heavy Cruiser 32 4 238 265 System Defence C.
32 4 252 354 Superheavy Cruiser 36 4 276 302
Battlecruiser 40 4 381 403 Battleship 48 4 447 463
Battledreadnought 60 2 431 425 + 12
Superdreadnought 80 2 580 577 + 24
Escort Carrier 40 2 286 240 + 24
Light Carrier 70 2 499 412 + 48
Fleet Carrier 98 2 687 548 + 72
Free Trader 10 2 50 17 Armed Merchantman 36 2 178 60 Survey Cruiser 48 4 333
93 Heavy Freighter 60 2 306 109 Bulk Tanker 100 2 502 188
I like this idea a lot, and when you think about it, point costs are more
or less arbitrary anyway. Since FT points don't really mean much
except for comparing two forces, I don't see any reason why a descriptive
design system wouldn't be adopted.
[Slightly off tangent topic warning] While I'm on the subject of
point costs, what are everyone's feelings about them? Points seem to be a
measurement of relative combat value, not necessarily an assessment of
material worth or technological advancement. This is all well and good, but
I've been trying to come up with campaign rules, and I don't think that the
point system, as it is now, accurately reflects a ship's consruction cost,
only how it will generally fare in battle against another ship. Does anyone
have any quick and dirty ideas on this?
Thanks,
> Tre wrote:
Personally, I prefer using points cost as part of the design process. Economy
and resources can be reflected in a game that incorporates costing. I find
this very helpful in campaigns or when reflecting different tech levels.
> This is all well and good, but
Using points alone to gauge a ship's combat worth would be insufficient, but
not without merit. A 300 build point warship could likely defeat a 50 build
point warship in one on one confrontation. A large difference in build points
might be an indicator, but as the difference decreases, this analysis becomes
less accurate.
With any ship design, factors to obtain its offensive or defensive capability
would greatly originate from firepower, mobility, and protection. I remember
reading some nifty methods for determining index values for both offensive and
defensive capability in one of my naval tactics books. I'll have to dig this
up sometime and find a use for it in FT.
> At 03:41 PM 3/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
That's what I've been thinking for some time now. Campaign cost
should reflect the amount of economic/industrial effort required by the
"purchasing" civilization/government to build the ship. As for thoughts
on how to adjust cost to mean this more than how well ships compare
tactically, I guess the difference would be in what you intuitively (or could
PSBS justify) as being increased costs of construction: larger hulls might
cost more proportionately than smaller hulls especially if shielded, troop
holding cargo spaces should probably cost more than 1 per mass as it probably
is rather expensive to feed and maintain a large body of fighting men and
their equipment, advanced electronic systems such as sensors and ECM and
shields should probably cost a lot more than lower tech systems like
submunitions. Then again, you'll probably have to cost submunitions and
missiles in a campaign system for reloads so it balances out. As David has
brought up, FTL and cargo bays are worth next to nothing tactically but are
worth more than their weight in gold-pressed latinum strategically. I
imagine a "strategic" point system would wind up being costed in a very
intuitive manner.
James
> At 12:24 AM 3/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
Nagged? Nagged? Perhaps "cajoled" would be fairer? Oh well.:)
> I've tried to make the numbers relatively consistent with those
Is there any reason you haven't included costs for More Thrust systems (like
you simply haven't gotten around to them yet)? Or to better phrase what I
mean, do you see any system that couldn't be costed by 4 times its mass?
> Enough waffle, here it is.
This is something I think it'll take me a while to think about. I
think it might be most useful to test this system at its extremes--that
is to say, to design a ship with tons and tons of weapons and systems but very
few damage points and to design another ship with a few solid basic systems
but a lot of damage points and compare their costs and tactical capabilities.
But all in all, this looks like it will work.
> David Brewer <db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk>
James
Tre wrote;
> I've been trying to come up with campaign rules, and I don't think
Have total ship mass be the major factor in ship cost and construction time.
Ship point should be involved but of secondary importance. A quick formula to
show the relationship could be:
Construction time = [(ship mass * 5) + points] / X
X is some number that results in balanced construction times.
Construction cost could do something similar but have less of a bias on mass
and more on points.
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, James Butler wrote:
> That's what I've been thinking for some time now. Campaign
I am "raised" (as an SF gamer, at least) in Starfire, and have worked together
with the Starfire Design Studio recently. This tends to colour my ideas about
campaigns somewhat, so take this for what it's worth... I have some "real"
input to the thread, too, but that's quite a way down
the post.
In Starfire campaigns, building cost in "campaign income" is the same as the
points value in one-off games. This means that if we introduce new tech
items in Starfire, we have to make sure that its cost reflects its worth
not only in one-off equal points gmes, but in a campaign too. Yes, that
takes some testing, I know...
But why? Well...
* Games (and, as a logical extension, campaigns) where only one ship
class or only one weapon is cost-effective very soon become very
boring. That's the problem we've had with A batteries in Full Thrust. This
means that if you use a points system at all, it has to give "fair" values
to the weapons and ships - ie, the points cost has to reflect the
combat value of the ship or weapon.
* Large campaigns - ie, large enough to build new ships or even colonize
new
worlds - are ultimately about using your resources as efficiently as
possible. Part of this lies, of course, in the realm of strategy and
tactics, but a disturbingly great part is in ship construction - your
ship designs have to be cost-effective, or else you have to out-shine
your opponent as an admiral that much more brightly unless you want to
be conquered.
In Starfire, the points cost is rationalised as "building cost" to simplify
campaign balance. A more powerful weapon always costs more to build than a
weaker one, period. (Well, that's the goal, at least...)
However, Starfire has tech levels, and tech progression - which means
that
a weapon which is good (and cost-effective) at one tech level is
completely outdated at a later, much as black-powder smoothbore cannon
aren't very popular (and extremely unefficient cost-wise) in our modern
armed forces today. However, many weapons hang on - or even get new uses
-
as the tech advances; the Laser (TL1), for example, is very weak compared
to other types of beam weapons (appearing around TL4-6), but it is one
of
the longest-ranged anti-fighter weapons... (fighters are TL8). However,
weapons/systems introduced _at_a_given_tech_level_ have to be (as)
balanced (as possible) against each other.
Because of this tech progression, "ideal" weapon mixes vary through the
campaign - if there is, indeed, an "ideal" weapon mix at any time.
Furthermore, Starfire's "Warp Points" (...those who have read any Honor
Harrington books know roughly what I mean) means that WP assaults (think
of them as dropping out of FTL in the middle of an enemy fleet) are added as a
"scenario"; ship designs for WP assaults tend to have more powerful,
but shorter-ranged weapons than designs for deep space battles. This,
too, adds - some say "forces" - tech variety.
Full Thrust (at least the published games) don't have any traces of tech
levels. (Some house rules have them; eg the "early period B5" battles with the
D batteries.) This means that, in order to have some tech
variety in the game - even if it is only the basic A/B/C batteries - all
these weapons (not to mention ship sizes) have to be balanced against each
other, not only in the tactical battles, but in the campaign as well.
OTOH, Full Thrust adds FTL engines, which are completely absent in Starfire
(where the WPs are the only means of interstellar travel). Furthermore, the
much wider interstellar maneuvering possibilities FTL travel allows means that
small, fast scouts will be necessary to a much
larger extent than they are in Starfire - especially if there is no
other FTL communication than starships!
<rambling mode OFF>
What I'm trying to say, but in a very indirect way, is "Make sure the design
system is balanced for tactical battles first. If it is, it isn't
very hard to adjust it for campaign use..."
> larger hulls might cost
This is true for tactical combat as well, so should be part of the "tactical"
design rules.
> troop
Or, better still, pay separately for the troops (and maintenance/food
for
them!). A troop transport ship shouldn't be too hard/expensive to build
(I think, at least); training and maintaining large number of troops certainly
is.
> advanced electronic systems such as sensors and ECM
Definitely.
> Then again, you'll probably have to cost submunitions and
Definitely. If you have to pay for replacement munitions (and possibly
transport them to the ships that need them), that alone increases the cost for
them quite a bit.
> As David has
One way to balance things like FTL drives is building time. If it takes
(much) more time to build an FTL-capable ship than system defence ship
of the same average combat capabilities, then it suddenly becomes much harder
to replace (and thus more valuable). Cargo spaces could be handled
like this too (...perhaps... but I don't think so, really - cargo
haulers should be the easiest starships to build. Look at "Moonbase Alpha"
<g>)
Cargo bays - yes, they are valuable strategically, but don't you think
the _contents_ of the said bays is even more so? If you pay for the
maintenance resources, you'll have to protect them anyway. This is the same
argument as for troop transports.
> I imagine a "strategic" point system would wind up being costed in a
And tested, tested, tested...
Later,
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> I've tried to make the numbers relatively consistent with those
<shudder> Better get that horror sorted out first...
Basic idea looks very sound (provided you have a good pocket calculator <g>).
I think some of the points costs are off (ie, mass alone isn't too
good an indicator of the real value), but those are for later.
On second thoughts, now it is later. Using the beam batteries as a measuring
stick, I don't think the Needle beam is as much worth as a three-arc B
battery, nor is the Pulse Torp worth a 4-arc a battery (...I think I'd
put the PT at 12 or 16 points, but then I use MASS 4 PTs anyway...). As for
the point defence systems... well, is the ADAF worth that much? It depends on
your opponent's fleets, of course, but 12?
Question about the "descriptive" costs for the FT/MT ship designs: did
you include the 8 pts for fighter bays (not fighter squadrons) and damage
control parties? I can't get the Superdreadnought to fit into a mere 577
points, but then I didn't have too much time to check my calculations.
Later,
One of the ideas that I'm rather fond of is using the d10-decimal
system. For instance, given Dean's simple formula and 'plugging' in a
roll of a ten-sider, indicating the industrial capacity of the race
(planet, shipyard, city, space port, factory...... whatever) in question you
are given a simple points value, diiferent systems or locations may have
different values. The industrial value can be set by the scenario, or be a
function of some other campaign mechanic (pay an extra billion
astro-bucks in overtime pay and the factories work all night, pumping up
your industrial capacity). Obviously, an IC of 1 is the lowest, slowest, or
most inefficient, while a 10 would represent the most rapid and efficient
metthods. Newly obtained technology can be given an IC penalty
until it becomes assimilated into the broader tech-base. For the really
quibbly-minded you could even use a d100 for all of the shades of
percentile goodness. Using some of the basic ship types and Dean's quick n'
dirty formula we have....
Scout boat: 1ms, 15pts IC: 3 6.6 days (weeks? months?) IC: 8 2.5 days (weeks?
months?)
Heavy cruiser: 32ms, 238pts IC: 3 132.6 days (weeks? months?) IC: 8 49.7 days
(weeks? months?)
Fleet carrier: 98ms, 687pts IC: 3 392.3 days (weeks? months?) IC: 8 147.1 days
(weeks? months?)
Battle dreadnought: 60ms, 431pts
IC: 2 365.5 days (Almost excatly a 'year-and-a-day' like its
namesake the H.M.S. Dreadnought) IC: 3 243.6 days (weeks? months?) IC: 8 91.3
days (weeks? months?)
Beats me if these are historically accurate given wet-navy vessels of
similar type, but they seem reasonable to me. I think the time scale using
days is best, although if materials for ships are really rare, maybe a longer
time frame is applicable.....
Gene
> ----------
> James Butler writes:
Mostly to K.I.S.S. Partly because some systems are too silly. Wave guns, nova
cannon and reflex fields avail me not.
> Or to better
Missiles are a bit funny. As a long-range expendable there would be
a pull toward designing ships with little damage and many, many missiles. I
don't see that as good.
Cloaks and reflex field probably should be paid for, like shields, both ways,
a flat cost and pushing up the exponent.
Many of the EW systems should probably be pointed higher (like area ECM).
Sensors are a little odd, in that basic sensor are indestructable (e.g. have
no record sheet symbol) and the usefulness of all sensors varies depending
whether emplaced on an escort, cruiser or capital.
Kra'Vak tech should probably weigh in at about 12 times it's mass. Not sure
about armour, nor about Sa'Vasku.
> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Wave guns, nova cannon and reflex fields avail me not.
But Waveguns are remarkably similar to those Narn mine launchers <g>
...
> Missiles are a bit funny. As a long-range expendable there would be
Well... LACs? <g> We have that trend in wet navy design now, I think...
If missiles are mass 2 = basic cost 8, a thrust 6 ship with 1 damage box, 10
missiles and nothing else would cost 143 points. The same
(FTL-capable) ship in the Full Thrust design system would, if I remember
the missile cost correctly, cost 180 points (but then it would have 10 damage
boxes, not one). I don't think they'd be too much of a problem in
a campaign (where these missile boats would be extremely vulnerable to a
counterattack by light enemy ships), but in a stand-alone battle they
might be too good.
However, is the Thing To Do to reduce the power of missiles (with AEGIS
systems or similar) or to make the missiles more expensive?
> Many of the EW systems should probably be pointed higher (like area
Hm. Come to think of it, I've always included the "basic sensor"
capabilities in the FireCon - ie, an escort with an extra FC can scan
two ships. It's not in the rules, I know, and it hasn't turned up all that
often (both because very few of our escort designs have multiple FCs and
because when the bigger ships start losing FCs, they already know what the
enemy ships are...), but it kind of seemed logical. I'd just include
the cost for basic sensors in the FC cost.
Trouble is, of course, that that gives freighters military-grade basic
sensors too...
In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970311174012.18152H-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> Oerjan
> Ohlson writes:
> battery,
I don't really like needle beams at all. Mounted in ones and twos
they don't seem like a good deal. Mounted in groups of fifteen+,
they start to look better.
> nor is the Pulse Torp worth a 4-arc a battery (...I think I'd
You may be right, but I think specialised weapons like PTT's and needles
always deserve to be payed for above the odds to prevent them becoming too
ordinary. PTT's are weapons for specialised ships to be built around as
Torpedo Ship Destroyers. You can always save points by skimping on the damage
track...
> As
> depends on your opponent's fleets, of course, but 12?
Again, you're probably right. I've been very conservative in writing this idea
up. It's so very difficult not to write an idea like this up to include all
the little house rules you like. PDAF
could easily be ditched for multipurpose C-batteries. ADAF could be
replaced with a specialised firecon. Scott Field had replaced needle beams
with a specialised firecon for needle attacks with regular beams in his PBeM
and I rather like that idea...
Etcetera, etcetera. The sad truth may be that any new points system will never
get properly tested because all the game mechanics who would do the testing
have rewritten FT into such a Byzantine state that the testing of one might be
meaningless to another.
Anyhow, I'm interested in what values you would ascribe to the systems you
mention above, and to all the systems I missed out. I don't think it is too
necessary to consider the implications of a degenerate gamesman's mind.
For ADAF maybe mass-2 or 8 points. Swapping two PDAF for one ADAF
seems like a fair trade.
> Question about the "descriptive" costs for the FT/MT ship designs: did
I tried. I ran the numbers in something of a hurry, err... that's 48 for them,
plus 16 for that, plus 36 for them, plus... did I add them already?... start
again... How many damage points are there on that track?...
> I can't get the Superdreadnought to fit into a mere 577
I've recomputed it to 609 + 24 for fighters, so my arithmetic was
off. It's probably still off... 64 (A's) + 16 (PDAF) + 36 (shields)
+ 24 (firecons) + 16 (bays) + 160 (damage) + 24 (DCP's) = 340 ^ 1.1
(that is 1 + (2/50) + 3/50) = 609.
Hmmm... if the idea actually took off someone is bound to write a spreadsheet
for it...
In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970312131102.28399C-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> Oerjan
> Ohlson writes:
Good conservative principles suggest the former. People who carry out the
latter themselves will be able to adjust as required.
I do think missiles need revision. We can PSB that missiles aren't ever likely
to get in close for a direct hit (too predicable a trajectory vs. point
defense) so detonate at a distance. That would make a missile like a mine with
an engine. Push the damage from a mine up, and drop missiles down.
> > Many of the EW systems should probably be pointed higher (like area
I think that that's a fine idea.
> Trouble is, of course, that that gives freighters military-grade basic
> sensors too...
Well, these are rather heavily-armed merchants. To do a proper
convoy escort scenario that mimicked any era later than, say, the introduction
of steam would suggest that merchants be entirely unarmed targets.
> At 11:44 PM 3/12/97 +0000, you wrote:
> I do think missiles need revision. We can PSB that missiles aren't
I think we have to assume that missiles can't get a direct hit
(I
have a little trouble believing these ships could survive the detonation of a
nuke on the hull...) As for raising mine damage (something that needs to
be done anyway) and lowering missile damage--if you have specific
numbers for this, I'd like to know.
> > Many of the EW systems should probably be pointed higher (like area
> > ECM). Sensors are a little odd, in that basic sensor are
There's an idea I've been toying with from Mekton. You get basic sensors for
free and you put a symbol on the ship to represent them. If you improve your
sensors by buying better ones, you put that symbol on the ship instead. If you
sensors get hit by a damage roll, they are downgraded. Superior and Enhanced
downgrade to standard. Standards downgrade to Backups. You can't ever lose the
Backup level of sensors. And yes, superior and enhanced can take two hits (the
first down to standard, the second down to backup).
Since usefulness of sensors depends on class in the original system and we're
doing away with that, usefulness of sensors (how many ships you can scan a
turn, etc.) should be based on number of fire controls. So with this system
you could build a small powerful ships with a lot of fire controls and
superior sensors and ECM jammers and simulate a small AWACS or C3 Orion type
craft, which I think is massively cool.
James
> James Butler wrote:
FT missiles are described to use something like detonation laser warheads
where the missile does not impact against the target. It just detonates
when in range, focusing the x-rays pumped from the explosion of a
nuclear device at the target in one powerful blow.
> At 10:13 PM 3/14/97 +0000, you wrote:
> FT missiles are described to use something like detonation laser
What, they never miss?
In message <199703142213.RAA20457@cliff.cris.com> Mike Miserendino writes:
> James Butler wrote:
Are they? I can't find that particular prose.
This is, however, much like how mines are described, which is what propmted me
to make the comparison.
What should the damage from mines/missiles be? Six dice not-
affected-by-screens would put a missile warhead on a level with
two submunitions packs, and that seems fair to me.
> On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, James Butler wrote:
> At 10:13 PM 3/14/97 +0000, you wrote:
Yes and no. A laser warhead could (perhaps; I'm not entirely sure) generate
more than one beam, in which case the D6 roll for damage would represent how
many of these beams that can hit.
Read the Honor Harrington novels for descriptions of SF laser warheads!
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> represent how many of these beams that can hit.
A typical detonation laser device, as decribed by specs produced by the
U.S.
military for SDI, uses several lazing rods to focus the X-ray emissions
from the detontation of a nuclear device. This produces one concentrated beam
from the lazing rods that would would be much more powerful than any produced
by a conventional power supply.
I highly recommend you check out declassified articles on the subject for
specifics. I researched heavily into SDI systems years ago for information
related to my engineering projects and found a wealth of data that was
equally helpful in wargaming. Sci-fi novels are helpful as you
suggested, but a lot of their interesting ideas have been fueled by real
science.